Slashdot Mirror
Russian Group Plans Manned Mars Mission By 2011
weekendwarrior1980 writes "A group of Russian space experts on Friday announced an ambitious plan to send a six-man crew to Mars within a decade, a project it said would cost only $3.5 billion. Russian space officials dismissed the project as nonsense. They plan to have 6 people explore Mars for months before returning to Earth. The Mission would take 3 years, and would depend on fully equipped spacecraft containing its own garden, medical facilities etc."
yes, but if Bush could manage to pull that off (send people to mars for all of $3.5M) that would be a VERY GOOD THING.
Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
So, what if they pull it off? What actually happens then?
I'm glad you asked, I have a three part plan for just this kind of event.
Step 1: I drink a toast to the people that pulled this off.
Step 2: I laugh at NASA and the Russian equivalent.
Step 3: My life remains mostly unaffected.
Finkployd
The correlation between funding and safety is rather a weak one. Our government may not be able to work as efficiently as this group and the engineers at NASA may not be as dedicated to the project. The largest problem this group faces is securing any funding at all and being able to set up the facilities to get this project done. It is analagous to a big business and a small business working on the same thing.
_____
Thank you.
Ahh, whatever...
If someone wants to risk their life to be the first human to land on another planet AND they can find someone to pay for it, I say let 'em go.
All the unmanned exploration in the pristine Mars will not advance the human cause as much as landing people there. Not only are there bound to be large scientific break throughs from the effort, but there are bound to be large psychological break throughs as well. And it ultimately is a great insurance policy for the survival of the human species.
As an aside if anyone hasn't read Red Mars / Blue Mars / Green Mars (by Kim Stanley Robinson) its a great triology that deals with the colonization mars in a really interesting way. So if you're looking for something to read, check it out...
Whomever marked this as flamebait, is either a die-hard Bush fan or hasn't heard about his space plan.
3 years? maybe they should send more than one ship. each having enough on board to support the other if a failure happens. it wouldn't be to much fun having an electric failure millions of miles from no where. the aaa takes long enough on earth!
Your ofrget that US bombers have cutting edge stealth technology that require a repaint if they get scratched, since that makes tehm sho up on radar. Among other things, not neading that really cuts down on hte price. So it could be possible, just like the guy that made a cruise missle for 5k.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Why not simply send a few ships to Mars. Have a couple go ahead with the items needed then send the group afterwards. They could go once it's been determined the primary vessels have arrived safely and are ready for human use.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
They'll get to Mars by 2011??? HAH! :-)
...
.. Profits!
Step 4: Watch as someone ELSE
Blast. No pun intended.
...is broadcast a 24-hr zero-gravity sex webcam, and they'd have ALL THE MONEY THEY WANTED.
If some group had a ship going to mars, how many people would line up to go? How many scientists would be willing to sacrifice their health and safety to be one of the first to set foot on and study another planet?
Simply by being held accountable by the government and the people, NASA is never going to be able to say "Well, this ship will get you there, but we can't guarantee that you will live to make it, and we can't guarantee that you won't get cancer by the time you get back. But hey, you get to go to Mars!"
Where as, a private firm only has to have a lawyer draw up a suitably impressive release of liability, and start charging for tickets.
More power to them, I hope they make it. It will push those damn lolly-gaggers in our over managed space program to actually acheive something instead of throwing money at quadrupal fail-safe indestructible toilet seats.
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
Am I the only one who dosen't think this is really great and in fact hopes that it won't happen?
You can't sterilize humans without killing them and you can't resonably expect their suits and equipment to remain sterile after the first use. If astro/cosmonauts were sent to mars now it would be a total disaster. All results of any subsequent experiments looking for current life on the surface of Mars would be thrown into doubt.
At least do a few sample return missions before we send a dirty infectious human.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
If you want to root for the little guy... Burt over at Scaled Composites is your guy. He's credible. These guys just aren't. No more need to worry about what will happen if they pull it off, than, if I were to tell you that I'll be teleporting to Venus next year. The burden of proof is on the party that asserts the positive.
On the other hand, we can ask whats gonna happen when SpaceShipOne hits 60 miles up later this year.
In all honesty, I wish the Russians had the American budget. They have proven their worth more than once in innovation, and it's a shame they can no longer afford it.
The russians prove their ingenuity b/c they have to or they don't get it done b/c they don't have the budget. THey have to figure other ways to do things. When I was first entering the workforce, it seemed as if all the russians produced really good tight code. We later realized why, you have to be efficient if your equipment is obsolete. Nothing bad here, just an observation
You're not far from the truth.
I for one would definately be tuning into this TV show, as it would probably be the closest i'd come to space in my lifetime.
I'm sure theres many more people besides me that have this idea and that could just be what makes this profitable.
Which cause would that be, exactly? Don't make the mistake of believing that what you consider obvious/universal, others do as well.
Not only are there bound to be large scientific break throughs from the effort,
We'd get more data on mars, sure, but how useful is that likely to be?
but there are bound to be large psychological break throughs as well.
Anything we couldn't get back here for a lot less money? I doubt it.
And it ultimately is a great insurance policy for the survival of the human species.
Can't argue with you on that, but let's be clear about this particular case: they are just going to visit, there are no plans to set up a colony.
As an aside if anyone hasn't read Red Mars / Blue Mars / Green Mars (by Kim Stanley Robinson) its a great triology that deals with the colonization mars in a really interesting way.
I'm one hundred percent in agreement with you there. It's definitely the greatest story of Mars colonization I've ever heard of. Went way beyond my expectations of what a colonization story could be. To be pedantic, though, the order is Red Mars | Green Mars | Blue Mars
Just keep shooting food to them.
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
A ship with its own garden? 3 years? I assume that they want to create a somewhat sustainable ecosystem . . . We couldn't even get that right on Earth . . . see biosphere 2 This sounds more than a little idealistic . . .
Russia's space history is impressive in some areas, but not Mars. I don't think I'd sign up to be an astronaut for this mission when Russia hasn't landed anything on the surface, and most of the orbital probes have failed. The Martian Defense Network takes a toll on everyone, but seems to take special delight in shooting down Russian craft.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
number four... who gives a sh**, our destiny is to colinate and grow as a succesfull species, at the expense of dead, and/or near-dead planets. Our expansiona and colonization, and security by not putting all our eggs in one basket (earth).. is far more important than any stinking microbes on mars...
That sounds fine, until a colony ship of some advanced civilisation shows up on our doorstep, ready to "terra"form our planet. Just need to get rid of 6 billion microbes first...
And while you may be content sacrificing an entire (putative) ecology in exchange for neater rocket ships, others would say that possible life on another world is a far greater treasure, however advanced. Nevertheless, while the issue of biological contamination should be paramount (in both directions), that should hardly prevent manned exploration, provided reasonable precautions are taken.
But immediate terraforming of Mars, even disregarding the technical problems, is clearly ridiculous. It is rarely a good idea to destroy something before we completely understand it. While concerns about making humanity a harder target for mass extinction are surely valid, we can almost certainly start colonies on the Moon or at L5 with much less work than Mars.
Cheers,
Mouser
Three things:
/. without a reference, and that 1 million pounds for an expedition definitely sounds like a number out of thin air. Without looking at their designs, it's really impossible to speculate on the final weight/mass of the vehicle.
First off, your assumption that they will use Proton rockets may be wrong - they may use a reconstructed Russian variant of a Saturn V, and launch everything in one or two trips. There's another post on this article that suggests alternatives to the Proton.
Secondly, I don't trust many numbers thrown around on
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, why go into orbit to assemble your vehicle? Why not launch it pre-assembled on a big-ass rocket (see pt. 1) and go straight for mars or whatever bodies you're using for a gravity assist trajectory? Going into orbit uses a lot of energy, and I really don't see the need for it. A lot of sci-fi involves orbital assemblies, but when you do the math it's not actually that practical...
All that being said however, I agree that I can't see this mission flying. It reeks of overly optimistic budgeting designed to secure enough venture capital to get some executives a fun, well paying job for a few years before the project dies in a sea of red ink.
Remember that NZ is essentially the same environment as many other places on Earth.
Mars is not.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Spending money is always better then a tax cut which is pure flushing money down the drain and doesn't help anyone.
Uh, how about the people who have to pay less in taxes? Jeezus Christ. This attitude that tax cuts should only be looked at in a larger economic sense really irritates me. How about looking at it like this:
It's my money! When you raise taxes, you are taking my money away from me! A tax cut is a good thing, in that I get to keep more of my money!
I don't know about that. Here's a better sure fire insurance policy for the survival of the human species.
1)Educate them with constructive traits instead of destructive ones.
2)Do away with all or most nukes.
3)Do away with publicised and unpublicised biological WMD strains.
4)Put fossil fuels out to pasture.
5)Profit (for the future of the the Human and most other species)!
Point is, even if Russia can't pull off the funding, it would be a nice thing to try.
America puts safety first in high risk operations these days. the 'flying by the seat of your pants' days of the space race are over. there is too much public pressure for NASA to make any mistakes, so anything with too much risk is out of the question. how in the world will America be able to accomplish such a risky operation like going to Mars with all this public pressure?
However, Russia is the perfect candidate (and always has been) for testing extremely high risk equipment and/or situations. why? because although Russia thinks about safety, it's not the number one concern; the number one concern is success.
when Russia loses a cosmonaut in some accident, they don't halt their space program for years at a time for a complete investigation. they theorize what the problem could be, make adjustments and press on.
If the world really wants to put a human on planet Mars in the next 20 years, the best idea would be for the world (including USA) to fund Russia to accomplish such a mission. I guarentee they will do it for the smallest amount of money and in the shortest amount of time.
Those of you interested in the reality TV from space might want to check out Spacestation, an IMAX 3D film about the ISS. It was made two years ago, but is premiered in Russia today, on April 12.
BTW, April 12 is the Cosmonautics Day. 43 years ago Yury Gagarin became a first human ever to fly to space. BTW, during the 43 years that followed, 431 humans have been up there. Think of it, only 10 people per year on average...
Nobody in the US (or in the world for that matter) expected the Soviet space triumth of the 1961. Nobody expects these Russians to pull off their Mars trip. But one thing is for certain - the only way to find the limits of possible is to venture beyond them, into the impossible. Good luck to those trying!
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Yeah, but it's a $10 screwdriver that doesn't stick to a working palette, and comes with sharp edges that cut the cosmonauts when they're grabbing for it in zero grav and leaves rust stains all over the place. The LED never worked, and the rack-mounting bolt only has a 30lb tolerance instead of 1000lbs, so all the equipment starts flying around the cockpit at launch.
Ok so maybe they have boosters and capsules in production they can reuse and save engineering costs. But which lander would they be reusing?
I don't remember any hardware other than the LEM that could land humans. So the lander they have to engineer pretty much from scratch. It's not a small bit of hardware either. On it's own wouldn't that use their entire budget?
Home Automation & Linux -- now I know I'm a geek
I am a republican for 30 years, I've never voted for a democrat, and bush could be the worst president since before the Civil war.
Please *don't* vote for him. He may be smart, but its mostly on how to manipulate people.
t least the Europeans and the former Soviet states are a little farther evolved than the US
both world wars were started in Europe. When was the last time mass Genocide happened in the US? It doesn't. Seems to be commonplace in European history. Evolved my ass. Face it, the US is the most evolved country in the world the whole world revolves around what happens in the US. You can be as angry about it as you want, but that is reality
NASA has many conflicting goals, a big bureaucracy, a risk-adverse culture. The Russian, Chinese, or private enterprise approach may be able to do this more cost-effectively than NASA, though probably not for as little as $3.5 billion.
I prefer the "evolutionary" private enterprise approach like as in the current x space contest. Start out with doable million dollar increments of financing and goals.
Oh man, you've been at the Democratic Institute for Tax & Spending Economic Theory too long. It's my money, not the government's money. The government has a responsibiity to do as much as it can while stealing as little of my money as possible. How anyone can suggest that the government stealing and spending more of my money is always better than letting me keep my money is just incredible.
The whole belief that government somehow knows how to spend money better than the taxpayers or somehow does it more efficiently betrays the underlying B.S. in much liberal-think.
You honestly think they'll have a hard time finding people to volenteer?
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Unfortunately it goes like this: the feds cut taxes, the feds then have less money to give to states in the form of block grants, states then have shortfalls in funding for education, transportation, safety, ect. States make up for this shortfall by raising taxes (income, sales, property, ect), raising fees (tuition, business, license, ect) and cutting funding to anyone that gets state money. John Q. Public (that's you) then gets bent over with higher taxes and fees from states, counties, cities, as well as state funded enterprises such as universities. Any increased fees paid by businesses or professionals gets levied back onto the consumer. I am amazed that after hounding the left about "no free lunch" that the right engages in the exact same kind of games. There is no free lunch. The liberatarian fantasy about no taxes and making everything pay as you go is just that: pure fantasy. Every road a toll-road, every sidewalk a toll-sidewalk, every bikepath a toll-bikepath, victim of a crime or acciendt you get to pay the ENTIRE cost for the emergancy services. It does not work.
between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt